S.B. 225 Public Corporation Amendments: transcript

on SB 2 25. Uh, first substitute, and I'll note that there's a second substitute online is my understanding. Yes. And we would like the second substitute adopted before we begin. I think it'll, in the sake of, for the sake of time, it would be, be, uh, best.

Thank you very much. Uh, let me just tell you very quickly, the substitute, uh, just Jim made a, a clarification regarding water around the Great Salt Lake. Uh, the Inland Port has, we do not have water policies. We adopt the water policy, uh, inside of the community that we are working in. They have that control and we don't, and that's, that's what the second substitute does. It just clarifies, there was a note in there that, uh, that we, uh, limiting, uh, uh, water around the lake and it was tied to Salt Lake Cities, uh, not around the lake, just in the Salt Lake City portion of our port. So that's, that's what it does. And it should make this a little easier to walk through because it should take away, that's the only place we've really had much contention on this. Um, let me just, uh, first of all, the Inland Port process currently is the largest economic engine that we have in the state of Utah. Uh, we have ports all over the state. They, we have done more, uh, uh, well and are doing more for rural Utah than anything that has happened in, in a lot of years. And so we are, uh, and we're very pleased with that, uh, what this bill does. And the reason it says Public Corporation Amendments, we originally started out as an inland port bill, and we, we've added a few lines in that, uh, take into the Fair Park District out west of Salt Lake. And, and I'll, I'll give, when I get to that, I'll, I'll talk about that just for a second. I have with me Mr. Ben Hart, our Director of the Inland Port Operations. And, uh, I would certainly open any questions may come to either of us as we go through this presentation. Um, the first thing that this bill does is it defines a distribution center. We have, uh, we put some limitations on ourselves when we first put the inland port process together that we did not want distribution centers because they're not job creators. And, uh, so this just clarifies what a distribution center is. And, uh, but it, it basically allows us to talk about manufacturing, rail, intermodal, customs clearance, uh, or, uh, uh, foreign trade zone facilities. Uh, and that a lot of that would be considered and probably would fit best in west of Salt Lake City, west of the airport. It clarifies how a project area boundaries may be, uh, may be described. And, and it just says that, that using legal descriptions are as one way of defining partial numbers, GIS boundary files or other accurate methods, uh, that are consistent with jurisdictional requirements. Uh, this was prompted by a little issue we had in Beaver County, and I think we'll get that explained here in just a second. Um, it clarifies the, uh, a transition or a trigger date of when a, when a project goes, uh, and moves into a, a, a realm of where it creates tax increment. And then I think, uh, let me get to this piece on, on the, uh, when we adopted the Fair Park Land Use Authority, which was two years ago, we have a, we have a corporation in our community that is a very large developer and, uh, they own property within inside the Fair Park, park di, uh, area. And so we, we, what this does is it just allows them to develop under the development process of Salt Lake City, but it takes them out of the procurement process of the state of Utah, which they just view as being a, a little bit overwhelming. And, um, and then, um, I guess the bottom line to all this is, is that, uh, it's just that this is a technical cleanup build that we need to continue operations. Uh, it, it helps with our boundary dis distribution, the timing and the technol of the, uh, and the timing of the mechanics, uh, that go in when putting the process this together. And, uh, and then it also reinforces the existing limitations and safeguards and, uh, without it, but it does not expand the authority or the boundaries of the, of the inland port. You know, I, I was sitting here, I kind of chuckled and I'm gonna tell you what I was chuckling about. I decided I was gonna try and use the word kiddos as I presented this, and I can't find a way to do that. So I will notify my good, uh, my good, uh, cos Senator Cullimore, Senator Escamilla that, uh, I, I did not get that mixed up or did not get that mixed in. She's not here to hear you say that, and she's not here, but she will, I promise you. Uh, with that, I, I think, uh, maybe, uh, we'd just like to take some questions at, at this time that presents the bill and tells you what it does. And again, the inland port is, it's a job producer. It operates around the lake. It doesn't take water from the lake. In fact, we've done a lot, uh, for the environment around the lake, and we can certainly explain that if you have questions regarding that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, and thank you Senator for bringing this bill. I, I had a few, uh, emails about the, uh, 200,000, uh, a gallon water cap. Um, but my understanding is that the noose, uh, modifies that and it goes by local maximums. Is that correct? Yes, it does. But the 200,000 gallon cap came directly out of, uh, out of our, uh, Salt Lake City. And that they, and they, that property is all considered in Salt Lake City's boundary declarations. And so what, but whatever the city comes up with, we will adhere to those, those practices. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Uh, I, I have a question for you. There's a lot of language in here about changing boundaries, and my understanding is this isn't changing any boundaries. It's just clarifying the rules for if the, the, the board or the important in the board wants to change boundaries. They have to, these are the, this is the way to do it.

That's exactly right. Let's could, I'm gonna have Mr. Hart answer that question, if that's all right.

Mr. Chair. Thank you. Ben Hart, executive director of the Utah Land Port Authority. Hopefully you can hear me okay. I, Mr. Chair, I think you just explained that better than I could. Um, but yes, you are correct. It just prescribes how the technical change would occur. And we've seen this happen, uh, in, as an example as what, uh, Senator Stevens Stevenson referenced. We had one issue where a county, literally it was a north to a south in a legal description, yet we had to bring that back to our board for adoption when it was very clear what the intent was. And there had just been one word change. So that's what we're saying is minor boundary, uh, clarification. And to your point, yes, this is something before we could ever enact or even do something that small, our board would have to adopt a policy that would allow us to do so. And our Senator Stevenson is on our board. Uh, Abby Osborne is on our board. Tyler Clancy is on our board, so they would have to agree to that before we could move forward.

My name is Joan Gregory and I'm from Salt Lake City. I'm speaking to make the case that the Utah inland Port authorities water use needs to be ca everywhere in the Great Salt Lake Basin, not just in Salt Lake City, as proposed in SB 2 25 Public Corporation amendments, we have the evidence Please hold SB 2 25 in committee until you can all look carefully at the map, which I and others have sent to you of inland ports currently located in Utah. So all can read closely the running out of water report, which we also have sent to each of you to get a clearer understanding of our water, Utah water issues, especially here in the Great Salt Lake Basin. Then come back into committee to discuss these water issues and just how clear the need for a CAP is at minimum, everywhere in the Great Salt Lake Basin, not just in Salt Lake City. While you have U EPA representatives here at this microphone, please ask them why they seem to be opposed to this reasonable step for Great Salt Lake. We need the Utah State Legislature to pledge a cap on water used now at every inland port location in the Great Salt Lake Basin, not just in Salt Lake City. Please amend SB 2 25 to reflect that change, even if U EPA is opposed. Further, I challenge the notion that U EPA has no authority to cap water use, and suggesting that only local government can do that. To the best of my understanding, I'm almost done. U EPA has the authority to decide who gets tax differential and under what circumstances. Therefore, U EPA could certainly say that they are not going to give tax differential to water intensive development within the Great Salt Lake Basin. Thank you very much for hearing my comments today.

My name is Monica Hilding, and, um, I've been working on inland port issues for a while. Um, I don't think anyone on this committee would argue that we have an abundance of, um, water in Utah. Um, in fact, great. Salt Lake Commissioner Ste stated, we are in a conservation mode and the state is focusing on reducing water use. U EPA states in an environmental focus that projects aim for sustainable development, addressing air emissions and utilizing, for example, water wise construction. So why would SB 2 25 allow all 13 u EPA jurisdictional areas except the capital city to use tax differential in our tax dollars to allow development projects that will consume more than 200,000 gallons of potable water each day? Salt Lake City, through a hard fought, very hard fought interlocal agreement, prohibited our tax dollars from being used if new or expanded development will consume more than 200,000 gallons of potable water per day. I don't know that other cities have the bandwidth to organize to, um, limit the amount of water. Um, I, I know from working very hard with, um, mayor Menal and, um, others on the, um, in the city that we worked very hard to establish that. Um, and, and with Laura Bria, the water, um, the woman who's in charge with water to, to limit that to 200,000 gallons. And, um, so even though they're saying that the local, um, cities and towns can make that decision, um, I don't think that many of their citizens are aware of the issues. And you are after being notified with the map and the report of how short we are on water, um, especially around the Great Salt Lake Basin. Thank you very much for the time.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. I'm Deida Seed and I'm speaking from Salt Lake City, Utah. And I just wanted to add to what the other two speakers mentioned. Um, the Utah Inland Board Authority is fast tracking and incentivizing development in places where it otherwise would not happen, and there's testimony by one of the developers to that effect. He's, um, in the Senate hearing on this bill, he said that the result of this is that data centers, um, which is, you know, the great speculative dream of every developer are being planned in areas immediately adjacent to the Great Salt Lake. And I point you to, to Willow County, for example, where the developer there has said on the public record that they're planning a data center farm to be f powered by a power plant. Um, that's independent from the grid. And there are huge environmental consequences be there because that aquifer is collapsing, potentially it's over allocated. And, um, for, you know, the inland Port authority can make a choice to cap water. Uh, you heard Senator Stevenson say they put a limit on themselves with regard to distribution uses warehouse distribution uses. Um, so certainly that could happen. The other place I wanna point you to is the town of Fairfield, where they're also, it's a tiny town, uh, their plan. And that's next to Eagle Mountain where there's a plan to have, uh, another data center area, and the town is getting a low interest loan from the Port Authority to drill the well to provide water for that development. The town is out of water, their major water source up. These are things, these are choices that the state is making to subsidize this water intensive use. Thank you.

Yes. Um, this is Heather Dove, uh, speaking from, uh, north Holiday. Thanks for hearing my comments. Uh, I also urge you to, uh, consider capping water use, um, throughout the Great Salt Lake Basin to 200,000 gallons of water per day per business. Um, as agricultural lands, uh, transition to industrial lands, um, especially with the stimulation of the inland port development, it's critical that the associated water rights are not used to, um, to dewater the, uh, ephemeral wetlands that are contained in those agricultural lands. These lands are all hydrologically connected to Great Salt Lake. Their presence, uh, contributes to the health of Great Salt Lake. It doesn't make sense for the state to spend so much money, uh, trying to save great Salt Lake, and at the same time allowing dewatering of lands that contribute to the water in Great Salt Lake. So I would urge you please limit the, uh, usage to 200,000 gallons of water a day per business throughout the Great Salt Lake Basin. Thanks.

Yeah, I move that we favorably recommend second substitute, uh, SB 2 25.

No, I think the sponsor's done a lot of work on this bill. Obviously, he's, he's been very involved in, in the inland port and, uh, um, I think it's, you know, it's a, it's a bill that we need to, to move on. So, um, I recommend that we vote in favor of it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, to tough. You've moving around here. Yes. Thank you. Sorry for the trouble. Uh, Senator or, or, uh, Ben, maybe you could speak to some of those concerns. As I understood that Salt Lake now favors the, the sub that was done, and, and I appreciate the work that was done there to get to agreement, I think that's important. But to the larger issue that's been raised by some of the commenters, you know, are we, where, where is this headed in terms of are we gonna incentivize water, uh, conservative businesses or what, could you just maybe address some of those comments about the water usage?

Absolutely. And um, the sub that we had, I don't want to say they support because I don't wanna speak for them, but we actually use language that came from Salt Lake City. We, we wordsmithed it a little bit, but we sent it back to, uh, the city administration for their review, actually before we posted it last night. So we did give chance, uh, Salt Lake City a chance to weigh in. We feel like this is directly in line with what they wanted. To your first question on the second question, absolutely no, we are not interested in any, uh, water intense data centers. And I do want to clarify, uh, in Fairfield, we have been working with them on a well that will serve, uh, the development more up in the town that well does not have capacity to serve a data center. So that is not accurate. And so even in our other project areas, we've been very conscious about what we're letting in at this juncture, I could say I don't, I don't know that the port will ever in any way, shape or form, whether it's in the Great Salt Lake Basin or outside support, a water cooled data center. We will not do it. So when we're talking about a data center, it has to be power cooled. The, the resource there is power, not water. Um, those actually run much more efficiently. I don't know that we will, we will ever see over a hundred meg. I don't know that we'll ever see another data center cooled by water again in the state of Utah. So we have absolutely no interest in that. We will make that commitment publicly. Um, and in terms of the other project areas as well, we do not look for water intense projects. And so, um, we are not trying to support that. On the contrary, um, as the Senator mentioned, uh, we're up to about 5 million that we've contributed back to the protection of wetlands. We'll do another two and a half million here in May, so we'll be about seven and a half total. We have also designated money from each of the project areas around the Great Salt Lake to dedicate money back to the lake. We think it's gonna be about $30 million over the next 25 years. So each of these projects does have within those projects as well. Sorry, I'm just gonna give you the litany of how we're actually involved here. Um, we actually have a wetland policy that determines how and where we will work with sensitive lands also. So in Weber County, we cannot destroy or participate, use our financial tools, uh, for the participation or destruction of any wetlands. In, in that entire project area in Illa County where was referenced, we actually have worked with the developer in the county to put a significant amount of acreage into a conservation easement. Our board would not allow for the use of funds until that was agreed upon. So we actually are making water wise wetland protecting decisions all around the, the Great Salt Lake. The other thing, uh, and one of the speakers I think Monica spoke to this is we see that, excuse me, is we see that conversion of land. We see a lot of, uh, a lot of water going back into the Great Salt Lake. So as we see it convert from agricultural to uh, uh, uh, hardscape surfaces, whatever that may be, we actually see that as a plus positive for the Great Salt Lake. And to her question, yes, we are willing to commit. We will make sure that any excess water gets back to use whatever authority we have to make sure we get excess water back to the Great Salt Lake. We feel like with the land use structure and patchwork that exists around the Great Salt Lake, you're really kind of in the wild, wild west demonstrably with the great, or with the inland port authority, we can show that we will actually bring a plus positive to the wetlands and to the lake because of the policies that we've adopted that would super, not superimpose, but would compliment all of the existing regulatory features.

I appreciate that. You know, I, I have concerns about the project just because of the sensitive location for some of the areas, but I don't see this bill as increasing the water usage that would otherwise be going forward. Does, is there anything that you see in the bill that would promote water usage beyond where the project is already headed?

Representative? Absolutely not. And there was a little bit of confusion, and so we feel like this sub clears up that confusion. There is a cap.

Well, some very quickly. I, I would certainly agree with everything that Mr. Hart has just said. And, uh, but if you look at what is going on in the basin that we live in, you know, we've, we've had a lot of agriculture in this area for a long time, and it's changing. But when you go in and, and pave over a farm basically, or you put a subdivision on it, you create runoff because that farm was utilizing almost every drop of water that ran onto it, and it was soaking it into the ground. Not a lot different than the turf you have in your yard. Uh, if you take, if you take that water and put it on a, on a, a piece of blacktop, it all runs off. All the water that rains on it runs off. And all the water that would've gone on in onto an agricultural operation is probably going through a house being flushed down a toilet or down a sewer pipe treated and put back into the lake in much better condition than it probably headed in that direction. So we really believe that what we're doing, uh, in this area, we're creating jobs for our children. We are creating, uh, tax basis. Uh, there was reference to the taxes that we were giving away. Let me remind all of you that if you have, uh, basically a piece of ground that's grazing ground, it's probably creating two or $3 an acre a year in tax. If you put a multimillion dollar building on it, you've all of a sudden created a lot more, uh, a lot more revenue for the county or city or for the development of our community, the positive development of our community. So, uh, uh, that, that's hard for me to understand why it, why it doesn't work. Well, I, you know, I've done a few commodity or developments. I own a large, a large farm. I grow trees for a living. I used 25% of the water today, I used eight years ago on the same acreage just because of the watering practices that we put in place. So, uh, I think we understand this really well and I, I think there would be, if there was a little more study on this, it would not, not take very long to come to the same conclusion we have that this adds to the lake doesn't take away from the lake. That, and that would conclude my presentation.

Representative Hansen. No. Representative Jack? Yes. Representative Maga. Yes. Representative Miller? Yes. Representative Owens. Yes. Representative Shallenberger? Yes. Representative Shelley? Yes. Vice Chair Cutler? Yes. Chair Hawkins? Yes.

Thanks for your time. Uh, thank you.

My motion will stay here and hang Out. Uh, that is not an order Substitute. Motion.

I would, yeah. I would move. Substitute Senate bill, uh, first substitute Senate bill 2 25 Inland Port Authority Amendments. Okay.

Well, I thank you very much. I have Mr. Ben Hart with me, who is our executive Director with the Inland Port. I've been involved with the Inland Port since its inception and I think it was 2018 18. And, uh, we have, uh, gone through some, uh, several different changes and, and, and actually thought it was falling apart at one time and got it back together. But it's become, I think, currently is probably the, at least the number, if not the number one, the number two economic development tool in the state of Utah as far as job generation and being able to take care of the very critical things that we have in the state. Um, uh, the first part, the first thing this bill does, I'm gonna take the first, the first, uh, little spot here, and then I'm gonna ask Ben if he would jump in and explain the balance of those. But when we first, uh, started this process, we, we ended up with a landfill out west of Salt Lake City. And, uh, we didn't want any distribution centers on that. We have found that we need to re just reword and reclassify distribution center because a distribution center, if it's got a manufacturing component to it, we should take into that, into account and make sure we can use the manufacturing. That stuff requires some storage and then needs to be distributed. So there's a little bit of a, a, a change in the definition of manufacturing center in the first part of this bill. And then with that, I'm gonna go ahead and let Ben walk us through, there's four or five other things here that the bill does, and then I'll chime back in at the end. Okay.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Ben Hart. I'm the Executive Director of the Utah Inland Port Authority, and it's a pleasure to be with you today. Uh, the majority of the changes, and we consider this a minor cleanup bill, the more that these, the majority of these changes have to do with our work in places that are outside of our jurisdictional area, that is the 16,000 acres around the Salt Lake City International Airport. We want to respect our partnership, particularly with Salt Lake City, and make sure we're in line with what, uh, their wishes are, and that we have integrity within the jurisdictional area. So a lot of our changes are clarifying what we can do outside of Salt Lake City versus what we're doing inside, uh, that jurisdictional area. Uh, case in point, uh, the, uh, boundary adjustments when we set up a project area, what we're finding is that in a lot of rural counties, um, the way we're recording, working with the assessor and then ultimately the treasurer, uh, can be different across the state of Utah. So, as we're recording documents, we're finding that there are little minor adjustments needed here and there. The statute currently outside of Salt Lake City, uh, requires, uh, exactness within how we're doing things. So we're asking for just some minor, uh, abilities to be able to change boundaries as that is needed. We also wanted to clarify that we, we have a 200,000, uh, gallon per day, uh, water usage requirement in Salt Lake City up to, we want to be able to respect them if they make changes and be able to honor what they're doing here, while also realizing that some of the other project areas can accommodate a larger water usage. So again, creating clarity between what we're doing in Salt Lake City and ultimately what we're doing outside of Salt Lake City as well. So as we're looking through this, we we're, we're, we feel like the Inland Port is a better tool as, as Senator Stevenson has said, um, what has been given to us as a blueprint from the Utah State legislature is working. Um, we're creating economic growth and transportation solutions all across the state of Utah. We're asking for these minor changes just to make sure that we can stay streamlined, nimble, and react to those opportunities, uh, when they present themselves. Is that the end of your presentation? Uh, I would, I just would like to add that, uh, you know, we, uh, the importance of the inland port, in fact, of the land use agencies that we have in the state of Utah and have established since I believe the first one might a, which was back in 2007. Uh, but the advantage that we have with these is that we are able to have a business opportunity come to the state of Utah. They can, they can know in a kind of a one stop shop how quickly they can be underway, if they could move, if the provided they jump through all the hoops that are in front of them. And, uh, so anyway, the inland port process is, it's worked exceedingly well as we've gone around the state in all the counties that we work in now. And, uh, we're very pleased with the, with the outcomes that we are getting. Again, I, I would, uh, I wouldn't say they're the number one job creator, but if they're not, they're number two and, and only just a step behind the mi a at the present time. So I would, uh, Um, that's picking between your children. But, but they, but thank you. But they will, uh, they will move into, uh, the number one spot and be able to hold that for a long time. Uh, there will be others that are, are right behind us. I think the point of the mountain is not far behind. And, and certainly the beehive development, which are not beehive the, um, ballpark development was, or fair park development area that will follow shortly behind. But all of those are just tremendous steps and tremendous assets to the state of Utah. That would be my conclude my presentation.

Hi, my name is Katie Pappas. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Changes to the Utah Inland Port Authority statute should only be made for the purpose of improving authority practices, addressing changing conditions, or to protect utahns. This bill would loosen restrictions on how tax differential is used, allow more warehouse development, lift much needed water, use restrictions, and give the u EPA executive director more power resulting in less transparency. According to experts working on the Great Salt Lake Project at the SJ Quinny College of Law, we are in an unprecedented emergency, and the lake will likely hit a new low level this fall. They say the lake will not be saved by volunteer efforts. Regulation is needed, and we will only save it when that becomes a priority. You can't save the Great Salt Lake while inten, while incentivizing water intensive development all over the state. Bills like this if passed, tell Utahans that their legislature either doesn't understand the urgency of the Great Salt Lake crisis, or is choosing more economic development over saving the lake. The legislature should also take a hard look at this and other tax increment funding, which is now being used all around the state and is pulling tax revenue from needed public services. This risky development funding mechanism commits tax revenues for the next 25 years or more to special projects that benefit a few people now. And Rob the next generation of needed tax revenue. Utah's future is being jeopardized in every possible way. Please vote no on advancing SB 2 25 as currently written. Thank you.

Yes. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Please. Uh, yeah, turn your camera on. Thank you very much. I really appreciate this opportunity, uh, Madam Chair. And, uh, I, I would like to speak specifically somewhat, some has already been, somewhat, has already been mentioned. Uh, but specifically I'd like to point to, uh, the line number. We're basically talking on line four 10. Uh, that's where specifically it talks about the increase in, or the loosening of the restriction on the water rights. I, I feel like if, if we allow this, we're basically, uh, the state will kind of be fighting against what the state's doing. The state's been doing some amazing things to preserve the Great Salt Lake. And on the other side, this proposes to specifically, uh, allow tax incentives for a very, very, very high water users around the Great Salt Lake. And, and the restriction for Salt Lake remains in place. But the Port Authority there, there's one going into Weber County and other areas around the Great Salt Lake. I think there might be areas where it might be just fine to not have the restriction, but in those areas where we're specifically working in the state of Utah to try to protect the Great Salt Lake, it doesn't make sense to fight against itself, uh, in that regard as far as protecting the Great Salt Lake. So in that regard, I, I would not characterize this as just mere housekeeping. This has some significant impacts, um, on the, you know, protecting the Great Salt Lake. And I apologize, I forgot to introduce myself. My name is Bruce Anderson, uh, former Weber County Commissioner and current, uh, we're one of the very few, uh, water rights users on the Great Salt Lake and take a very, uh, feel like saving the great Salt Lake is a very important thing. Thank you very much.

Thank you. So my name is Bruce Williams. Ah, okay. I'm a, it, it cut off part of my name. I'm sorry. Um, I am a licensed professional land surveyor in the state of Utah. Um, I am concerned with one of the provisions in SB 2 25, the part that allows an authority to make administrative adjustments to project area boundaries if the adjustment is considered minor For property owners, boundaries are not technical or administrative details. A boundary line determines whether a property is pulled into a project area and subject to redevelopment authority, tax increment financing, land use restrictions, and long-term planning decisions that can directly affect property value and use, even small boundary changes, can have a real and lasting consequence. This bill allows an unelected authority to decide internally what constitutes a minor boundary adjustment based on policies. It creates itself outside of one narrow example. The legislature sets no clear limits. There is no requirement for public notice, no opportunity for affected property owners to object and no approval by an elected body. And as a note to a property owner, no adjustment to their boundary is considered minor. While the bill states that this applies only to project area boundaries and not jurisdictional land project areas are exactly where an authority exercises its power. Allowing those boundaries to shift administratively creates a pathway for gradual expansion without transparency or accountability. From a property rights perspective, boundary changes should always involve clear statutory standards and public oversight. I respectfully urge the committee to amend this language to define minor adjustment in statute, or requiring notice and approval before boundaries affecting private property can be changed. I thank you for your time.

Um, my name's Rhonda Reson. I'm from Weber County. Um, I stand in solidarity with Bruce Anderson and wanted to make a very brief note after he spoke. He noted line four 10. We were actually talking about line 4 94, so it was just a clarification of his statement. Okay.

Um, I'm, this is Joan and I'm online. I think you can hear me now.

Um, so my name is Joan Gregory and I'm from Salt Lake City. And, um, I'm, I'm concerned about SB uh, 2 25. I see it as opening up property tax dollars to be used to subsidize development that uses huge amounts of water. I'm pleased that there are restrictions on the amount of water used for Salt Lake City. However, Utah, all of it, is one of the driest states in the nation. In Utah, we are either in drought or preparing for the next one. So we always need to use our water. Li wisely. That's a quote from the Utah Department of Natural Resources. It's a fact we all know this, right? EPA must not fast track and subsidized development that ignores the fact that this water is already spoken for and needed by our communities throughout Utah. No u EPA project anywhere in the state of Utah should be allowed to go forward using property tax dollars to subsidize development that uses huge amounts of water, period. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Millner. My name is Jennifer Garner. I'm from Davis County. Um, I do have concerns with Utah opening the doors for the 40, the minimum 40 data centers that are already here. I understand that the data has not been clear on how much each data center has been using and that there's a bill this session to re request that information, but also it will anonymize it doing, passing this before you know the data. We cannot make good decisions without all of the data. If you can't answer how many, how many gallons of water, the extra data, the increases are gonna be, then I would suggest you can't, you can't reliably or responsibly vote for this. I think that the, um, the inland Port has done great things, however, the claiming that, oh, it's the second greatest, um, job provider. Well, where's the data? We would love to see the data. And I super appreciate your interns this session. They've been, um, filming and putting more things on social media, which is so great to have more transparency and we really, really appreciate that. Um, but again, if you don't know the numbers, then I don't think it's responsible for to, to, um, pass this. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Senator Millner. Hi, Senator Stevenson. How are you? I'm excellent. How are you? So good to see you. Um, I got this book from the Women's Leadership Institute Programming Senator Millner. I know that you've contributed to that organization and I thank you. It was really a great organization. Yeah. Um, so, um, my name is Dr. Courtney Henley. Um, I'm a physician. I'm here representing myself. Um, however, I'm very, very active on the board of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and the legislative committee and the women's physician section of the Utah Medical Association. And I'm very active in my community council. Um, I say these things, just to let you know, I'm just here 'cause I really care about Utah and, um, this, the residents and citizens of Utah. Um, this bill was not introduced during the interim session, I think because it's bad for Utah. Um, and I haven't seen this amendment. Maybe the amendment changes it so much that it's spectacular. Um, I have opposed u EPA since the fabulous Senator Stevenson, who I heard you might be retiring this year. And I just wanna thank you for your service, sir, because I think maybe being in the legislature is thankless sometimes. And I thank you. Um, you may prove that Right here quick. Um, but of course he formed it with former Speaker Hughes and then, um, the fabulous Ben Hart has been on the board ever since. Um, I'm not sure it was formed for the best reasons. I kind of feel like the land that Speaker Hughes had in the Northwest District jurisdiction still is playing into things today. And I'd like to see more transparency there. Um, as a physician that's as a taxpayer, as a physician, I have been concerned about the inland port since it was formed in 2018 because it's a water hungry fossil fuel burning transportation port idea. And, um, Utah has some of the worst air probably in the world today. We probably have the worst air in the world today. And it comes with a host of healthcare problems, mostly, um, associated with inflammation like heart attacks, strokes, COPD, asthma, um, cancer, neurologic delays like dementia.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Um, so, um, dewatering of places like Fairfield Town, um, is, uh, gonna be made easier by these amendments. And, um, it's for a data center and that's really not fair to, um, the people in that community, especially the healthcare costs that they're going to incur. Um, and then of course, the Sitler property, um, in the northwest quadrant, this gives the executive director, um, the arbitrary ability to develop that in a way that is bad for the health of, and it's Senator Escamilla ass constituents that really suffer the most of these health consequences, um, near the, the inland port. And, um, it really adds billions of dollars to the healthcare costs of Utahans. It's not a job creator, it's a healthcare consumer. We have the most expensive healthcare, um, in the United States with the poorest outcomes, the sickest people. And it's really that point of order ground zero, not focusing on the bill.

I'm sorry. Well, um, I would like for you to pass it, um, with a negative recommendation out of committee.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Chuck Acker Law. I'm one of the owners of the, uh, uh, UA Valley Inland Port, uh, project. And I wanted to comment on the, on the bill itself and add a couple of pieces of information. The, the bill itself is a good bill, uh, and it did need a few places to tighten. And I don't think you've gone overboard at all in, in what is being proposed. In fact, it in some ways is very helpful. Uh, I, like one of the other speakers did have a question about the, the, when, when you use the phrase, uh, you know, minor adjustments to know exactly what a minor adjustment is. But beyond that, if it's, it's a, it's a good bill. Uh, the, the concerns that have been expressed, uh, haven't mentioned the need for employment and, and, uh, uh, for our, our citizens and the great demand for growth in our area. And in my 50 years of experience in developing land and buildings in along the Wasatch front, I can testify to you that this bill has, has, uh, provided a way to move industrial into areas that otherwise might not have gone there. For example, on our property, it was, there was no, uh, uh, utilities to it whatsoever. We have developed a water system, we have developed a wastewater system. We have brought in power, we have brought in gas, we have built the roads. And we could not have done that without this bill. And the procedures that are in this bill, including the ones you are talking about, making changes, uh, without, without this kind of help from the legislature. When, when I was, uh, much younger, uh, I used to be a Republican state chairman at that time. Our legislature was made up of, of lawyers and bankers. And, and I have great respect for lawyers and bankers, but we needed a few, uh, uh, forward looking, uh, developers in the, in the group. And you've got that. And, and this bill has, has been a great bill. Two or three small comments. We use water rights. We buy water. Uh, we don't go to the cities and, and, and take water away from somebody else and bring it to us. We are in an area where there's, there's lots of water rights available for sale. And, and the reason for that is that it's agricultural land that is transitioning into other uses. And so we purchased the water and we have enough water to service, uh, our project of 600 acres. We also have 200 of those acres under contract now to become a data processing center. And we have, uh, in the last session of the legislature lobbied to get a, the opportunity to build a power station on our site, which was also a, a wonderful thing that the legislature did to give us that. And now we are able to deliver power to the, the data storage people and the artificial intelligence people. There is been an, an ancient concern about water usage in the cooling of data centers. That is not done anymore. These data centers take no more water than a normal manufacturing facility would for bathrooms and, and, uh, kitchenettes or whatever. We do not use water in the cooling of these buildings. I want that clearly understood as you contemplate and discuss the subject of water. And finally, the, the Adam adding a property, uh, and the, the language about the, uh, you know, giving Ben Hart some additional authority is, is, is, whether you include that or not is immaterial. We prefer to do walk through your present system, which we have done. We have added, uh, four properties into our project. They've all been done by county resolution and then coming to the board of directors of U ipa. And it's all been done in a proper manner. And in a way, i, I support because I, you know, when we're looking at title and ownership, it is a much better thing if we have a legal process to go through. That's clear. And I'm, I'm a little bit ambivalent about having administrative, uh, checks, uh, in, in, when it comes to transferring property rights. But again, if, if the legislature allows that, that's fine. But I want you to know it has not been a problem in our growth. We have grown, uh, into six, oh, we started with 162 acres. We're not 600 acres and we're thirds sold out. Thank you. So that's, uh, I'll leave that testimony with you. We really appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay. Alright. I would like, I did make just a couple of quick comments Sure. To the comments have been made here. Uh, first of all, uh, someone have said, we're giving away the taxes. If you go look at the property that's being developed, it generates no taxes at this time. Or if it does it's grazing rights at best. Uh, if you look at that on a, it may be a few dollars an acre would be the, the tax generation, the tax increment created. Now, when you develop that property, it will create millions of dollars of tax increment. And, uh, the, the, the money that the inland import uses or what we give back or what we put into infrastructure is not, it's not money that is, uh, we don't use it willy nilly. It's not thrown away. And the tax increment is there. And in 25 years, all the tax increment will be with the taxing entity. So I, I think that there's, there certainly, uh, someone needs to go study taxes 1 0 1 and see if they can, because it's the creation of taxes. That, that is the good, the good part of this. The other, the other piece is we talk about boundaries. And any of you have owned property in the state of Utah in, um, that you and have owned it for a long time. I, I own a farm in West Layton that, uh, the property, the boundary from the survey is out about nine feet on one end and a half a mile and, and 18 feet on the other. It's because when grandpa gave that property to his posterity, uh, he stepped it off. And that was the partial that we, we had, and it probably wasn't surveyed at that time. This goes back in the 1880s and we were looking at property. All of the state of Utah, the same thing has happened too. So there are property adjustments that need to be made. Uh, some of those, uh, uh, granted, we're going to, we have to do those through give and take if you're selling that property. But there's a lot of reasons that this bill is in place and we're trying to it to expediate what we do, uh, make it work well and to, uh, to make sure that everyone's treated fairly in that process. But we, we working on Tax Inc. Created tax increment, not tax increment that is there presently. It's, there's nothing there presently on almost all the partials that we're working with. So, Uh, and just to give the committee assurance, Madam Chair, um, on a couple of items, this bill calls for us to develop out a board policy as to when we can actually use the minor boundary adjustment. I know that was raised by a couple of different people that will have to go through a public transparency process. Our board, which has three elected officials on it, um, ultimately will have to adopt that. Uh, the other thing that I would mention as well is right before the session, we did two and a half million dollar contribution to wetland conservation. We also did an additional two and a half million dollars for public enforcement in Salt Lake City. After the session and we get our next round of funding in, we'll do an additional two and a half that will bring our total contribution over the last year and a half to seven and a half million dollars to protect the Great Salt Lake demonstrably. We can show in all of our project areas, we're creating revenue sources. 'cause we are finding ourselves to create revenue sources that protect the Great Salt Lake. We do get a little bit tired of this narrative of we're trying to destroy the lake. That's fault. Anybody that says that is absolutely burying their head in the sand, having a a, a piece of property in the port project area will provide a better outcome for the Great Salt Lake than not. And we can show that. The other thing I would say is we also partnered with DEQ on a, on $112 million grant. That's the largest environmental grant the state of Utah has ever received. It is all about zero emissions and cleaning the air in Salt Lake City. So again, the port is stepping up to these major environmental issues and I don't want that to go unnoticed. Thank you. Um, a Senator Kwan

chair, um, I heard here, you know, a lot of, um, comments about the Great Salt Lake and I that is very important and we are all, uh, very concerned about that. Um, I, but I don't see in the bill. Um, and these are online, uh, 5 0 4 to 5 0 6 on in the sub. Um, I don't see an increase in the amount of water that is being, um, um, asked for that. Uh, it, it's at 200,000 gallons already. And it looks, it appears to me that that is also what you're saying in, in this section. And could you explain that a little bit better?

Yes. So the 200,000, uh, agreement was with Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City wanted us to honor their ordinance that says that we will not recruit to their, uh, community anything that would violate their ordinance, which is the 200,000. So that's where that number comes from, is we've been working in other parts of the state. We're in San Juan County, we're in Iron County, we are all over the state of Utah. There, there are other jurisdictions where that creates a little bit of ambiguity where, um, they feel like it's reasonable to go a little bit above that, um, and ultimately try and attract the right, uh, users into their community. So this specifically clarifies that this was an agreement and we're gonna honor that agreement with Salt Lake City, but that's what it was. So it is, it is keeping, it, it at 200,000 that it won't go beyond that Or less 200,000 or less Or less.

Yes. And it seems to me, oh, Madam Chair, if I may. Sure. Yeah. It seems to me that, um, you would have a great interest in making sure that the Great Salt Lake is healthy. I mean, you, you don't wanna see this land die out either, is that, is that correct?

Correct. To the tune of seven and a half million. And we will probably over the next several years, easily Eclipse 10, we'll probably get to 15 over the next three to four years in contributions to protect the Great Salt Lake.

Great. Thank you. And I, I appreciate the work that, uh, the consideration you have with other agencies in protecting, uh, the environment there. Senator Johnson

Y Yeah, I heard it. I heard in the testimony, and I've, I I've actually studied this issue with these AI data centers and I think people are so focused on what happened earlier with this big NSA center that came in and the amount of water usage. But my understanding is, is most of these now are closed loop systems that, that don't consume. They don't use the water directly for cooling like the older systems did. Right. I mean, that's been done. So, so we alleviate that problem, right?

Yes, that's correct. I don't see us ever incentivizing or working with a data center that would be water cooled. But even, even in, we have a water cooled data center at Camp Williams that was put in, in, uh, around 2010. And that data center, they take water outta the Jordan River, they clean it and they put it back in the Jordan River in a better state than it came out. Now they don't put quite all of it back, but almost all of it goes back into the river and improves the river.

Yeah. I think there's a lot of focus on that, if I may. Sure. I mean it, you know, when you're talking about these rural counties too, we, you know, we talk about the need for housing and, and you know, things for our kids being able to live here now we're providing economic incentives for companies to come in and, and actually they come into these areas and, you know, people are gonna have jobs and they're gonna, and they're gonna build up areas outside of the Wasatch front. And it, see, it seems to me that that's kind of a win-win, right?

Absolutely. Especially on the revenue side. Absolutely. Especially what on The revenue side as well. Yes.

Yeah. So the, I mean, we're creating things, right? Right. And, and, and these incentives are in order to do that. Right. Right. And I, I know this is a focus of us in, in the legislature to, you know, to promote, you know, critical minerals, data centers, uh, things that can actually provide an engine for economic growth. Right. And, uh, you know, I I, I sit on this committee and it seems like every time someone comes in for any change that you want to make to this, it's always about we're gonna kill the great Salt Lake. You know, our, our kids are gonna die because of all this. But, but those, the, that actually helps these things because there's, there's more revenue to draw from to, to clean up these things, right? Absolutely. Absolutely. So,

Thank you Madam Chair with that. Uh, did we, we have a substitute then? Or are we Oh, we've already moved. Substitute. Okay. Then with that, then I would move that we favorably pass Senate bill first substitute Senate Bill 2 25 to the full body of the Senate.

You very much. I I may get accused of, uh, trying to disguise this bill. This is actually the Inland Port Authority bill and when we were putting it together, we added a few things, a couple of things, little things into it to help take care of the ballpark district out here. And they changed the name to Public Corporation Amendments and, uh, I didn't get that in time to change it on my, my talking points. So this is the Inland Port Authority Amendments or Public Corporation Amendments. What this does is it clarifies the definition of a, of a distribution center. There's been some controversy out there after the inland port bought the, uh, the landfill on what would qualify as a, as a distribution center. A lot of people manufacture goods, they need some place to store them. The storage becomes a distribution center and it turns into a, a problem. So it clarifies that definition clarifies how a project area boundaries may be described as the inland port moves out into rural areas. We're finding that a lot of the property descriptions that of property that we are, uh, occupying has been stepped off by grandpa and, and yet it has a tax ID and everything, but it's still been stepped off. So this just gives us an ability to, uh, fix those boundary definitions and, and put it more in line where it works with what we do now. Um, it also, uh, formalizes the project area boundary adjustment process because once we fix boundaries, sometimes there needs to be adjustments. It gives us, it gives us a mechanism of doing that. Uh, it it clarifies, uh, the transition data or the of a trigger date. So when, when people come into these areas, they, they normally have a date that they need to start when they start the taxes trigger. And that gives us the ability to, to put that into play. And then it further addresses the capital city limitation on tax differential. Um, uh, the bottom line is, is that it's a, it's a technical cleanup. Bill clarifies definitions, boundary, uh, boundary administration and, uh, timing mechanics and often, um, and, uh, while reinforcing existing, uh, limitations and safeguards, uh, without expanding the authority or boundaries or incentives. I know there's been a lot of discussion on this bill there. They came out and they said that there's a 200,000 gallon, uh, water provision in it. That water provision comes from Salt Lake City and it only applies to the area west of the airport 200. I know there's a lot, been a lot of talk on this, but 200,000 gallons is not a lot of water. Um, there are people that use that much, that have large swimming pools. Most of our municipalities, it's just not a lot of water. So, uh, what this does is it, it allows the inland port, uh, it just puts us in compliance and puts everyone on notice that if you're building in that area, that you are limited in the amount of water that you can use. That's also the water that's tied into the Salt Lake drainage or the Salt Lake Basin. Um, currently the statue applies only to a jurisdictional area and the only jurisdictional area that applies to is west of the airport. Uh, it also, um, let's see. Anyway, this has created a lot of confusion and, uh, but just to show you what the Inland port has done to date in January, the board and a Jordan, uh, board meeting Utah Inland Port Authority contributed 2.5 million toward wetland mitigation on the Great Salt Lake. Uh, this is followed by an additional, uh, 2 million that was given. Uh, this was followed by an additional 2 million that we gave in 2024. Uh, and it anticipates we'll have 2.5 million in successive years to contribute to wetlands mitigation and wetland, uh, not mitigation, but wetland promotion along the lake. Um, uh, it also, uh, communities with, uh, the reason we haven't put the 200,000 water limitation around the state is because every community's different on what they have was far as available water to use. They don't, most of the communities, a lot of the places we're located do not, uh, contribute to the Great Salt Lake Basin. And then also, um, the inland port does not, uh, we're not inde don't independently dictate water policy to any of the users that is dictated by the community that we move into. Infrastructure and development strategies are advanced, uh, are advanced in partnerships with local governments and service providers and the structure. And they, um, that we have ensures that the local needs and the leads and, and the constraints are, uh, that's our driven, our driving action. And, um, anyway, it makes we're, we're not into dictate the communities, we're into work with them and help in their growth. That concludes my presentation. I would be open to questions. Alright.

Uh, I would, I think I've gave a, I hope I've given a pretty good summation of what we're doing and, uh, I would, uh, call the question

Uh, thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Uh, Mr. President Pro Tem. Um, this bill, we talked about this the other day. There seems to be a lot of confusion on the water piece of it, but this is really a, it's the Utah inland port. We have some things tied to it that are with the, uh, the, uh, ballpark district down here, or the Fair Park District. And anyway, the inland port does not, we do not independently meter out water that is all done completely through the communities that we work with. And we represent the infrastructure and the development strategies that we use in the inland port are done in complete partnership with the communities and also with, uh, local governments and the, uh, and the service providers that we work with. And the, the structure, um, this structure, what this bill does, it, it changes it basically our operations a little bit, but it ensures that local residents and, uh, and uh, there's plenty of con uh, constraints in there to drive the direction and the decisions that we reach. So that's, that's really what the bill does. If you want me to dive into it, I'd be more than happy to take questions. But this is an inland port, uh, bill that we're working on and we've, uh, uh, been using, uh, or working with all of the Inland port. I think we passed initial legislation in 2017. It's been added to, uh, since then. So this is just another piece of it.

Thank you, Mr. President Pro Tem. I've been approached by numerous organizations asking that we, uh, look to extend the same restrictions on water across the state. Um, we, they feel like this would be, uh, beneficial to the Great Salt Lake and, um, are just really concerned that if a, uh, another agency doesn't have a cap, that that would be a negative impact on the Great Salt Lake. Um, is there any appetite for changing the requirement for every, uh, municipality and, um, county to have the same cap on their water uses?

Uh, is that a question on my appetite? Yes. Are you happy for that? That is, no, thank you. Uh, like I said, my constituents are very concerned and they appreciate the cap here in Salt Lake County, but they'd like to see that in further county. So I'll have to be a no thank you.

Uh, motion would be, I would call the question, The question is, shall first substitute Senate Bill two twenty five pass Roll call vote.

Thank you Mr. Speaker colleagues. I have the opportunity to be appointed by Speaker Schultz to serve on the Utah Inland Port Authority. It's a fantastic economic development, uh, tool that serves our state Every year because of the scope of the Inland Port Authority, we run a bill that has technical changes, um, in order to better serve the citizens of our state. Um, in particular Senate Bill 2 2 5. Um, um, uh, make sure that we're working hand in hand in collaborating with our partners, our city partners. In particular, the most substantive portion of this bill is an agreement between the city of Salt Lake and the Inland Port Authority in the state of Utah. Um, the city of Salt Lake has restrictions about what type of, um, water usage can be used in the city boundaries of Salt Lake City. This legislation formalizes that city ordinance and ensures that the, uh, an authority or whatever entity does not go over their water limit. Um, it also clarifies how project boundaries may be described, as, you know, with different maps and GIS tools, um, making sure that the, there's accurate methods that are consistent with the jurisdictional requirements for each project area across the state. Uh, colleagues, this is a, this is a tool that serves rural Utah all the way to our capital city. And I believe this bill makes it better for everyone. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

side of Senate Bill 2 25. I would motion that we reconsider our action on, on that legislation.

Yes. Mr. Speaker, I erroneously forgot to adopt the third substitute, which ensures that that same restriction on water usage applies to the State Fair Park District as well. Making sure that we're respecting our capital City's, uh, wishes when it comes to water usage.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Just once again. All the third, uh, I motion to adopt the third substitute of this legislation. There

Uh, yes, Mr. Speaker. Just as I mentioned before, this ensures that the State Fair Park District also respects the wishes of our capital city when it comes to water usage.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. And thank you colleagues. I appreciate the consideration this strengthens, uh, these, uh, guardrails around these tools and make sure that we are respecting, uh, the local city's wishes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Just once again. All the third, uh, I motion to adopt the third substitute of this legislation. There

Uh, yes, Mr. Speaker. Just as I mentioned before, this ensures that the State Fair Park District also respects the wishes of our capital city when it comes to water usage.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. And thank you colleagues. I appreciate the consideration this strengthens, uh, these, uh, guardrails around these tools and make sure that we are respecting, uh, the local city's wishes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Uh, we are, um, there was some things added to this that would've, uh, interrupted the processes that we have with mi a and the point or in the, uh, inland port and we took those out and it, it, everything's fine. So Thank you. You have a motion to

Senator Vickers Baldy Lewin Brammer Bus Comore Escamia Fillmore Roper Harper Aye. Kinins Ipson. A Johnson Quan McKay Aye. Mikel Milner Aye. Musman Owens pitcher Plum Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Weiler. Senator Wilson Winterton. President Adams Yeah. Do a Your vote.

Senator Fillmore. Thank You Mr. President. Two changes made in the house. One that has to do with the height of a building. It can be, uh, regulated on